The Wiz

I can't remember which team had the injury at long snapper. Didn't they still win that game or was it the Steelers the benefited from 3 or 4 missed FGs for the win?

I said it a page or two ago, I love watching the Browns have a really good and complete team, other than Watson. He's doing a good job of making that happen.

fixed that for you.

Burrow 4-11 for 29 yards wow

ANALYTICS!!! 😁

Well, the defense for Browns has been good. It's just Watson that has been struggling.

I will never understand how they give a full playclock on a F'up by the refs. 15 seconds should be fair for both teams.

Could be both but the 9ers D has been good so probably leaning more towards the 9ers being better.

Nothing makes me happier than watching the browns have a good team other than Watson. They bet the farm on him and he hasn't even come close to being his former self.

Sauce gonna get away with this anyways.

I believe that segment they call "angry runs"

That's a banking question and whether or not the NFL has some sort of agreement with a specific bank but as far as I know, I've never heard of a bank letting you earn interest on an escrow account. I'm sure it's possible but I would guess it would be pretty rare.

So then I would assume that is all guaranteed money from any player. Similar to what aristocrat was asking. The reality is that there is probably an escrow for most teams that is sitting with a quarter to half a billion dollars that gets picked from and deposited into on a regular basis because of restructures and paying out the guaranteed money as a bonus or signing new players and putting more money back into it. Like I said, I would need to know when the rule was written because of the amount of money that is the norm now in the NFL and I would guess that the NFL assumes that the owners are going to put that money in to escrow (may) even though it's not necessarily required (shall). Just how I interpret the rule.

After rereading what's Augie posted, I believe that it's only for "fully guaranteed contracts" and not guaranteed money with a full contract. I very well could be wrong on my understanding of guaranteed money but that's how it sounds to me.

In that sense, I would guess fully guaranteed money would be (base salary, roster bonus and workout bonus) aka their cap hit. The cap number is really the only number that the NFL uses when it comes to total dollars. Which goes back to the concept that the cap isn't real because you can just keep pushing contracts out so that adds another level of complexity to it. My guess is, they did need to put that money into escrow but at the same time, that money can be spread out at some point if they decide to restructure Watson once his later high guarantees are going to screw up their cap (thinking 2025 or 2026) and then that money in escrow will just get dropped into Watsons bank account as a bonus.

Without diving into the actual rule and when it was written, I would guess that Florio is just arguing the "legalese" of the rule. With the "may" and "shall" statements. The reason I say "when" it was written is based off a guess that it's possible that the NFL, before it became the cash cow that it is with billionaire owners, might have felt that they had to say "they may require them to put money into escrow" for owners that weren't as flush with cash as they are in todays NFL. Also, I do not know if this only applies to fully guaranteed contracts or any guarantee in the contract (my guess is the prior).

I believe that is the case. This was always where the "ralph is cheap" came from because of his "cash to cap" philosophy. He would not give out big guarantees because of the money that he would have to front in order for to sign/restructure/extend players. That why you see the more common "cash over cap" and owners being willing to put their own money up front on players that they want to keep/sign. This is also true with how teams like the Raiders and the Bengals operated for a very long time. I think I saw the last largest guarantee that the bengals gave out was something like 30m and that was 8-9 years ago prior to the Burrow deal.

If they actually plan to use him a bunch right away (35-40% of the snaps) and in the role that they said they want him ala Cole Beasley, then yes, I think he could. Unfortunately, I don't see them giving him that much game time right away. Knox had 76% of the offensive snaps last year and the other two TE's combined for 31%. Of course most of Kincaid's snaps are going to come from Morris and Sweeneys snaps but taking another 10% would mean either eating into Knox's snaps or they really are planning on running a lot more 12 personnel.

Setting the bar low that way he can only improve, good thinking.

Why would he go ballistic, he was having too much fun putting Taylor on his ass.

When you see this happen, it's a little more than "it happens on every play" though.

Now i need to watch Men in Tights again. Such a great movie.

Twas a joke. The memes about toney are pretty brutal already this morning about how bad he was. I could only imagine if Davis has a game that bad. 1 catch for 1 yard.